Language and technology Flashcards
Introduction:
As we all enter 2023, technology is gradually taking over all instituions and aspects of society, even the english langauge. But is this a good thing, that is positively adapting our traditional, basic langauge that has been left untouvhed for decades or is this a disastrous thing that will gradually lead to our language deteriorating? Basically, are you a prescriptivist or will you take the optomistic, non-judgmental approach, that i favour?
Introduction: part 2
I mean technology is a source of entertainment and means you dont HAVE to talk to your annoying sibling or worst enemy face to face, what an earth is there not to like? Like can you reallly say steve jobs was doing wrong when he invited the iphone? no, i didnt think so. Although it can be quite distracting, its affect on our language is definitely not detrimental.
Introduction: part 3
i mean, why are linguists blood boiling over emojis, abbreviations and text speak. I say that the fact that technology is influencing the change of our English language to an extent isn’t a negative thing, traditional language cannot be preserved forever, change is inevitable and that is a fact prescriptivists need to learn to embrace.
paragraph 1.)
The “so-called literary experts” argue that emojis and abbreviations wrecking, demolishing and vandalising our language, i say adapting. For example, prescriptivists would argue that texting means we have shorter face to face conversations and its lead to an increase in slang and informal shortened words.
Paragraph 2.)
Prescriptivists propose the most ludicrous arguments, for example John Humphrey claims that our language is “destroying our heritage”,pillaging our punctuation, savaging our sentences and raping our vocabulary. How melodramatic is that, i mean personally i think Humphreys should change his linguistic journey to becoming an actor.
Paragraph 2.) part 2
According to the “proffessionals”, texting is done solely by children,and because children tend to use abbreviations or miss out certain letters (knowingly and purposely), this means they will take these mistakes and use them in exams.Do certain linguuistis genuinely believe children are going to begin their biology essay on organisms with “BTW” or “TBH”?
Paragraph 3.)
On the other hand, a linguist who isn’t as ridiculously absurd is David crystal. He argues that texting is not corroding our language, he embraces change and sees texting as efficient. Crystal views abbreviations as over exaggerated and not as common as Prescriptivists claim. If anything, he believes that the more you text, the better your literacy skills become as texting involves practising reading as well as writing.
Paragraph 3.) part 2
He says that there are yths circling thechaotic linguist world such as that in the future, technospeak will rule,standards will be lost, and creativity will be diminshed due to globalisation imposing sameness. I mean how deterministic and preposterous is that? People like me and you, shouldnt entertain such foolish arguements. I mean only 10% of people actually use abbreviations,in their text and btw even if texts weren’t invented in the first place, abbreviations would still exist as they have been around for years, way before texts. And as suggested earlier on,most teachers are not seeing evidence of abbreviation in children’s schoolwork.
Paragraph 4.)
Another explanation as to why technology isnt that impactful on our language are the theories of convergence and code switching. Convergence is the idea that individuals adapt their language depending on the situation, this concept is given by well-known theorist WIlliam Labov in the linguistic world. In this case, it displays how hildren are fully aware and capable with separating their text speak used with their friends via their phone to writing an essay or response in their GCSES.
paragraph 4.) part 2
Additionally, students have the abiliyty code-switch by making their language closer to the vocabulary and terminology on which a GCSE or A level examiner would use.To reinforce this further research shows that, students with higher screen times do equally well in schoool compared with peers who spend significnagtly less time on their phones.
Paragraph 5.)
A crumbling,collapsing,corroding castle is how prescriptivists view our english language,which has an obvious level of innacuracy. They argue that the language is losing it’s rich tradition and heritage,but i say that language has never been perfect,and it will need to be altered in order to adapt to social circumstances.
Paragraph 5.) part 2
Aitchinson also disagrees with this approach to language change,and her point view is that we cannot preserve something that is constantly changing.
Paragraph 6.)
Clearly its not obvious to everyone, that due to globalisation and technological advancement, everything in society changes, to the shoes you choose to wear to work, to the way you listen to ,music or the way you workout, everything changes. I don’t see anyone wearing the same jeans that they wore in the 2003 so why should we still be uses phrases like “elephant’s instep” or to use words like “thy”?
Paragraph 6.) part 2
Consistently linguist waste their precious time creating theories like the “infectious disease theory, which is the idea that we ‘catch’ linguistic changes from around us and we ought to fight them off or the “damp spoon theory” that states that bad English sticks to people who are lazy. After all, the only lazy language is drunken language, which Prescriptivist experience rarely as they clearly don’t know how to let loose.
Paragraph 7.)
I genuinely have no idea what these endless discussions are on the negatives of emojis, i mean the discussions must last under 2 minutes at most.
